MQA is Vaporware

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

Talk to @Jud, he brought it up.

 

True, however in his defense it was an but an example or your myopic vision/understanding in relation to the markets and the consumer vis-a-vis MQA.  Your (and his) back and forth on the details is rather off topic...

[Ralf11]

Just tell us how great MQA is, Lee.

 

 

That's all we need to hear - the benefits to the consumer.

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Just one of the ways you have things exactly backward... *sigh*

 

Well,  put out some proof then. I linked back to three year old articles that bear out my assumptions. I did not see any original research, commentary, or facts from you. Nor have I changed my opinion since then. 

 

I took a second look at what MQA is doing over the past few days, and the answer is more complex than your simplifications. Which, I already knew, but wanted to take a bit of time to confirm. And, shocking fact -  MQA is not all bad. It is pretty cool technology in a lot of ways.

 

As I said before, and stand by, MQA the technology is certainly capable of doing most, if not everything that was originally promised for it. The current implementation is crippled. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, I do not think they are important. 

 

I doubt you have the math or experience to evaluate MQA, especially as the only way to do so is by looking at the results and working backwards.  I do, and other people here are even better than I am. (Sorry, you apparently are not one of those people.)  Some people agree with you, some people, like me, are not so sure you know what you are talking about, just throwing some facts around to justify your loosey-goosey opinions. Not everyone is going to agree with you. I think your antics trying to shout down - and slander - everyone who does not agree with you, and be the "authority" on the matter of MQA is - well - comical. 

 

You actions certainly suggest you and a few others here definitely have an agenda.  I wish you well, but doing bad things like you are doing will inevitably lead to unpleasant consequences.  That isn't a threat by the way, just a prediction. 

 

Have a nice life. 

 

 

[Lee Scoggins]

58 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Finally, on a more non-technical note, Lee is on record repeatedly, here and in multiple venues, saying that a key benefit of MQA is that it is an "ecosystem." And MQA's own reps are on record saying even more pointedly that the benefit for the record labels is that they don't have to "give away their Crown Jewels" if they securely wrap up the high-res PCM in MQA. More than this, Lee regularly has used this "business case" for MQA as a diversion in response to the technical objections about MQA's lossiness and DRM. So after all that extolling of MQA based precisely on MQA's aspirations to replace and supplant conventional PCM in the high-res marketplace, it is disingenuous for him to now say there's no danger of that happening.

 

A few corrections:

• I build ecosystems for my day job so I like talking about this aspect for that reason.  I see what the MQA team is doing there to be clever and nuanced.  As I mentioned before, the key financially is to get a major streaming service on board.  What I have felt is clever is to piggyback this better audio on a mainstream access point as prior attempts to focus only on the audiophile segment didn't really work well.
• The avoidance of "giving away the crown jewels" point makes sense as the labels are a key participant in the ecosystem and if this gets them on board then the chances of wider adoption increases.  But we are not even seeing this slowdown the release of hirez material at all.  Even the sacred and previously hirez-stingy Beatles are releasing tons of content now.
• There is no value in debating the technical pros/cons of MQA as everyone here is already dug in on their opinion.  
• As for DRM, there is not one single example of it being utilized.

 

Now as for hirez sampling rates having value, I find that pretty basic.  Anyone with decent experience doing recordings understands the sonic improvements in moving from 24/48 to 24/95 or 24/192.

[KeenObserver]

5 hours ago, crenca said:

I just used the report function, only the 2nd time I have ever used it.  You simply don't have a grasp of even the very basics of MQA, and now your getting personal with me.  This is not my thread, but if it was I would moderate you even though I think moderation 99% of the time is abused on internet forums.  Your either intentionally deraliing, or don't have a clue - either way the result should be the same...

 

They've sent in their agent provocateurs.  Obviously,  facts are not going to work for the MQA shills.  Do not let them provoke.  Let the facts speak for themselves.  And continue to put the facts out there.

MQA has been dragged out into the bright sunlight and cannot bear the scrutiny.  MQA does not want the music consumer to look behind the curtain.

[MikeyFresh]

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I doubt you have the math or experience to evaluate MQA, especially as the only way to do so is by looking at the results and working backwards.

 

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I wish you well, but doing bad things like you are doing will inevitably lead to unpleasant consequences.  That isn't a threat by the way, just a prediction. 

 

Welcome to my Ignored members list Mr. (self proclaimed) Highbrow/know-it-all, you are too clever.

 

Victory lap, pat yourself on the back, you really are a higher authority of some sort, what with all of the very compelling proof you've been providing?

 

 I heard Lee is also good at math some pages back, also self-proclaimed curiously enough.

[Ralf11]

He really does seem to be shilling for MQA.  If there is any connection, it needs to be disclosed.

 

 

As for DRM, it is built in.   So far, there is not one single example of it being utilized.

[Lee Scoggins]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

I just find it remarkable at how much energy is thrown into this MQA stuff - it's an irrelevant blip in the audio timeline, Just Another Method to try and make people's playback "sound better" - by foolin' around around with the source end. IME, the reproduction chain is where the real action is - why concern oneself with trying to compensate for lack of integrity in the reproduction mechanism by 'pre-distorting' the material, when the smart move is to make the system that presents the sound work better.

 

I think you need both: 1.  a good playback chain and 2. good source material.  Stuart came up with a clever way to improve the source material.

[KeenObserver]

"You actions certainly suggest you and a few others here definitely have an agenda.  I wish you well, but doing bad things like you are doing will inevitably lead to unpleasant consequences.  That isn't a threat by the way, just a prediction. 

 

Have a nice life. "

 

Threatening people is beyond the pale!

 

I do, in fact have an agenda.  I do not want to be screwed by MQA.

[mansr]

I suspect there is a market for selling dormant but "established" forum accounts to shill farms. I am also starting to suspect that Paul R has sold his in this manner. It is the most logical explanation for the behaviour seen recently.

[crenca]

Just now, mansr said:

I suspect there is a market for selling dormant but "established" forum accounts to shill farms. I am also starting to suspect that Paul R has sold his in this manner. It is the most logical explanation for the behaviour seen recently.

 

Seriously, has he had medical issues recently?

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

As for DRM, it is built in.   So far, there is not one single example of it being utilized.

They claim the code I found was "left over" from an early "experiment." That may be true, and the code appears to be incomplete, but it nonetheless shows where their intentions are.

[KeenObserver]

When a product cannot stand on its own, the promoters resort to the type of activity seen on this thread,  and at Chris's seminar.  It is telling.

[ARQuint]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

Ah, don't sweat the small stuff Andrew. People act crazy in places like this because they are essentially anonymous, and that makes it like a vast playground where they can act in ways that would get them "punched in the snoot" in a non-virtual world. Ideas become funny things; where people believe they have to defend them and if someone has a dissenting opinion then it is one's moral obligation to go correct 'em.  The secret to letting it go?  It happens to everyone sooner or later.

 

My best guess is some of the folks here are trying to use the forum to build up their audio-world reputations, and have devolved to the point of targeting people like John Atkinson from Stereophile. In actual fact, there are a few people here who could challenge JA, technical chops to technical chops. Those people are *not* the ones raising a ruckus, though Archimago put a lot of this together three or four years ago. (And yes, he is one of the ones who could go toe to toe with JA and keep up technically.:) 

 

In essence- the ones who are making the loudest rude noises don't appear to me to have done much original research. Seems like Archimago put the research together, people like EslDude, Miska, Jud, and Mansr, among others, pretty much validated it. Chris took on being the face of the issue at RMAF and took plenty of shots from the "heavy artillery."  

 

All over MQA, a different way to distribute "better" sound, and which *could* have been great thing. Still may, though that infuriates  particular crowd here. Same arguments were made over FLAC vs ALAC, WAV vs AIFF,  SMPS vs Linear, and the ever popular, oh, you only spent $xxx on that? You are NOT an audiophile.  The vinyl guys were particularly cutting when they swept in with a sharp angle of attack. (I will get killed for puns one of these days, but who can resist?) 

 

(shrug) - Here, have a virtual Sam Adams and enjoy.  It seems to work best if you treat most of these conversations like pub conversations anyway. If there are no math or charts flying around, it's just a pub chat.  

 

 

-Paul  

 

 

Good post, Paul, and good advice.

 

I don't ring in terribly often because—I hope this is clear, even from my small number of comments—my issue isn't MQA but rather the way we talk to each other. To use a word that definitely inflames crenca - civility. For the record, I have not made any doctrinaire "assertions" about MQA. I once reviewed a product that had it and spent a fair amount of time comparing MQA Tidal files to HDtracks files of identical resolution and concluded that the MQA files sounded pretty good. Not night and day better than the nominally lossless version but pretty good, when the point of reference was live music. I don't have an MQA-capable DAC at the moment, and I'm just fine. I don't feel that the future of our hobby (and the audio industry or the recording industry) rises or falls with the fate of this particular technology. I've met a lot of talented and musically-inclined engineers and manufacturers over the last 20 years to know that everything will shake out in the end and that the upward trajectory of sound quality in the digital realm will continue. MQA may or may not be part of this.

 

I'm a member of the Philadelphia Area Audio Group (PAAG)—there are 80 of us, and a waiting list—and go to as many of the monthly meetings as I can. I like hanging out with other audiophiles. People are unfailingly generous and thoughtful, as we share recommendations of recordings and insights about equipment. Although there are a range of opinions regarding the codec,  MQA doesn't come up much at all, except to observe, in passing, how toxic online exchanges can get on the more lightly moderated forums. Likewise, my interactions with enthusiasts at the two shows I typically attend every year don't have the "us-versus-them" character seen on "MQA is Vaporware".

 

If there's something that gets under my skin, crenca, it's that I, Andy Quint, is "anti-consumer". I am a consumer. I'm a standard-issue audiophile who has a pretty solid music knowledge (conservatory-trained, over 1000 record reviews for TAS, Fanfare, and elsewhere), can write, and cared enough about the phenomenon of perfectionist audio to progressively scale back the time and energy devoted to my regular, money-making job to do this. So I'll declare again something that I know gets under your skin—that you and I (and Lee and Robert and JA and Jason) really are on the same team. We're part of a vital ecosystem of engineers, manufacturers, retailers, hobbyists, and yes, audio writers who are all inspired by that mysterious point of intersection between technology and art.

 

I'll now have that metaphorical beer that Paul recommended. But it won't be metaphorical.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

[mansr]

1 minute ago, ARQuint said:

If there's something that gets under my skin, crenca, it's that I, Andy Quint, is "anti-consumer". I am a consumer.

No, you are not. You are the marketing arm of the audio industry, whether you realise it or not (I'm unsure which is sadder).

[psjug]

17 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think you need both: 1.  a good playback chain and 2. good source material. 

And tiny little doodads on the wall

[mansr]

1 minute ago, psjug said:

And tiny little doodads on the wall

Thimbles. They are called thimbles.

[KeenObserver]

3 minutes ago, psjug said:

And tiny little doodads on the wall

 

Do they work better than Mapingo discs?  Do they help with time smearing?

[KeenObserver]

5 minutes ago, psjug said:

And tiny little doodads on the wall

 

Is there any way to connect them to the blue light?

[tmtomh]

25 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

A few corrections:

• I build ecosystems for my day job so I like talking about this aspect for that reason.  I see what the MQA team is doing there to be clever and nuanced.  As I mentioned before, the key financially is to get a major streaming service on board.  What I have felt is clever is to piggyback this better audio on a mainstream access point as prior attempts to focus only on the audiophile segment didn't really work well.
• The avoidance of "giving away the crown jewels" point makes sense as the labels are a key participant in the ecosystem and if this gets them on board then the chances of wider adoption increases.  But we are not even seeing this slowdown the release of hirez material at all.  Even the sacred and previously hirez-stingy Beatles are releasing tons of content now.
• There is no value in debating the technical pros/cons of MQA as everyone here is already dug in on their opinion.  
• As for DRM, there is not one single example of it being utilized.

 

Now as for hirez sampling rates having value, I find that pretty basic.  Anyone with decent experience doing recordings understands the sonic improvements in moving from 24/48 to 24/95 or 24/192.

 

A few corrections to errors in your corrections:

• I have no problem with you enjoying talking about ecosystems. That fact, however has no relevance to the fact that it's disingenuous to tout the ecosystem of MQA while at the same time dismissing concerns expressed by others that MQA will in fact succeed in its ecosystem aspirations.
• The avoidance of "giving away the crown jewels" point certainly makes sense from their point of view (and they are investors and part-owners of MQA, not just "participants in the ecosystem). But the fact that it makes sense does not mean it's a good thing.
• The fact that there is no slowdown in the release of high-res material, and that the Beatles have made their 50th Anniversary Sgt Peppers and White Album available in high-res format, does not support your points about MQA. Rather, it undermines your point. If "even the sacred and previously hirez-stingy Beatles" are releasing high-res content in unmolested PCM form on HDTracks and elsewhere, then it proves there's no need for MQA.
• There is indeed value in debating the technical pros and cons of MQA, because it's not actually a matter of people's opinion - rather, it's a matter of demonstrably provable facts, which some folks acknowledge and others refuse to acknowledge. Of course folks do have opinions based on the interpretation of those facts. But the question of whether MQA includes lossy compression/encoding is not an opinion question, it's a factual one. And just as it took quite a long time to get you to admit that MQA does in fact include lossy compression, it remains worthwhile to educate others who might be confused by misleading equivocation and marketing, about the actual technical facts of MQA.
• As for DRM, MQA is fundamentally based upon DRM. No one who purchases an MQA file can freely copy, edit for personal use, or playback on non-MQA devices the unfolded, lossless, high-res version of the MQA file. Forget the final render with the upsampling to 176/192k and DAC-specific filtering - I'm talking about the 24/88.2 or 24/96k first-unfold version of the file. There is no technical reason that this version of an MQA file cannot be copied and played across all manner of devices. There is only a DRM reason. When I buy the music, and MQA restricts my ability to do with it as I please for personal use, that is by definition Digital Rights Management. And you know it.

[tmtomh]

12 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

I don't ring in terribly often because—I hope this is clear, even from my small number of comments—my issue isn't MQA but rather the way we talk to each other. To use a word that definitely inflames crenca - civility.

 

I share your concern with civility, and as a search here will confirm, I've often weighted in against the uncivil, unnecessary, and IMHO self-defeating ad hominem attacks some folks tend to make in this and other threads.

 

What I wish, though - and what I find quite frustrating, for what it's worth - is that you (and John Atkinson) would be willing to engage here on some substantive issue other than civility. When you weigh in on civility and (more or less) only civility, you shouldn't be surprised that you get only two kinds of responses: (1) negative responses that accuse you of dodging and deflecting from the substance of the thread; and (2) positive responses that support you by making snide, ad hominem claims about the motives and insecurities of the people who disagree with you. Both of these kinds of responses serve precisely to strengthen and reproduce the incivility you are so concerned about.

 

 

12 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

I'm a member of the Philadelphia Area Audio Group (PAAG)—there are 80 of us, and a waiting list—and go to as many of the monthly meetings as I can. I like hanging out with other audiophiles. People are unfailingly generous and thoughtful, as we share recommendations of recordings and insights about equipment. Although there are a range of opinions regarding the codec,  MQA doesn't come up much at all, except to observe, in passing, how toxic online exchanges can get on the more lightly moderated forums. Likewise, my interactions with enthusiasts at the two shows I typically attend every year don't have the "us-versus-them" character seen on "MQA is Vaporware".

 

If there's something that gets under my skin, crenca, it's that I, Andy Quint, is "anti-consumer". I am a consumer. I'm a standard-issue audiophile who has a pretty solid music knowledge (conservatory-trained, over 1000 record reviews for TAS, Fanfare, and elsewhere), can write, and cared enough about the phenomenon of perfectionist audio to progressively scale back the time and energy devoted to my regular, money-making job to do this. So I'll declare again something that I know gets under your skin—that you and I (and Lee and Robert and JA and Jason) really are on the same team. We're part of a vital ecosystem of engineers, manufacturers, retailers, hobbyists, and yes, audio writers who are all inspired by that mysterious point of intersection between technology and art.

 

I'll now have that metaphorical beer that Paul recommended. But it won't be metaphorical.

 

Andrew Quint

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

I had no idea you were based in Philly - so am I! A shame PAAG has a waiting list, but I would value an opportunity to be part of an in-person gathering of like-minded folks, as such interactions invariably are more collegial than online exchanges.

 

As for the online heat about MQA, I think it's important to note that if folks could feel secure that MQA weren't going to supplant or restrict the supply of conventional PCM digital music files/product, then there would be a lot less heat about MQA. Personally I don't feel MQA is going to supplant FLAC and other formats - but that's not because MQA doesn't aspire to do that. It does - it's just that it's not likely to be successful in that regard.

 

Along these lines, I am convinced that you and other influential figures could help reduce the heat and acrimony around MQA if you more frequently and forthrightly acknowledge that MQA's aspiration is indeed "one file, many media/formats" and that it is reasonable and understandable to see MQA as a threat to consumer choice (even if you don't think that threat will become manifest). The supplanting of of conventional PCM formats is what MQA's vision of success looks like, and to my mind it's inconceivable that anyone who is pro-consumer, and who is a consumer themselves, would have problem acknowledging the potential issue with that vision. When @Lee Scoggins, for example, says he sees no danger of MQA supplanting other formats, folks would take him a lot more seriously if they thought he cared about that danger and understood why others are concerned about it.

 

So I hope you'll consider weighing in here about something more than "the way we talk to each other." That's important, but it's important only because of the substantive issues we're here to talk to each other about.

[KeenObserver]

Apparently, shining a bright light on,  and telling the truth about MQA will inevitably lead to unpleasant consequences.

[fas42]

39 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said:

 

I think you need both: 1.  a good playback chain and 2. good source material.  Stuart came up with a clever way to improve the source material.

 

Yes, good source material always helps. But the question arises as to what "improving" means - I have a CD of Glenn Miller tracks, some of which have had "professional" noise reduction applied to them; guess which are the least interesting, the most sounding like a kitchen radio quality about them ? Yes, they are "nice and quiet" - but they also sound very mundane compared to the others; the vitality and oomph has been sucked out of them ...

 

My take is that the options for "improving the material" should be left to the consumer - if he wants to add tone controls, and DSP to "make it nicer" he has full range in what he can do - for others, just leave the raw material completely untouched, apart from fixing clear technical faults.

[Lee Scoggins]

11 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

There is indeed value in debating the technical pros and cons of MQA, because it's not actually a matter of people's opinion - rather, it's a matter of demonstrably provable facts, which some folks acknowledge and others refuse to acknowledge. Of course folks do have opinions based on the interpretation of those facts. But the question of whether MQA includes lossy compression/encoding is not an opinion question, it's a factual one. And just as it took quite a long time to get you to admit that MQA does in fact include lossy compression, it remains worthwhile to educate others who might be confused by misleading equivocation and marketing, about the actual technical facts of MQA.

No one has presented any evidence there hat people can hear the alleged lossy part of MQA.  By this I mean, are there any peer-reviewed studies that show people could discriminate between a hirez file and the same encoded in MQA then unfolded?  If MQA is correct, then any loss would be part of the inaudible region so we shouldn't be able to hear it.  Then if the deblurring filters work, the end result of the MQA file should sound better.  Indeed that is what I hear on Peter's files.

[KeenObserver]

Are you going to start the cycle all over again?